Gibbs: "We're one vote away in the House of Representatives from making healthcare reform a

[jenmito]

reality." This was on CNN's State of the Union show this morning. John King interrupted him by saying, "You mean the Senate, right? You said the House but you meant the Senate," to which Gibbs replied, "No no...well, the House and the Senate have already passed a bill. If the House were to take up the Senate bill, that bill would then go to the President's desk."

Poor John King, along with the rest of the media, trying to declare HCR dead, not realizing this could still happen even though we lost one Dem. Senate seat.

[dkf]

1. This hcr bill is hugely unpopular.

I hope he is mistaken.

[annabanana]

2. It would be very helpful to my family.

It would be popular with me.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Popular to you, while a major tax increase to working Americans

The Senate's HCR is crap, a corporate bonanza built on the backs of the working class.

Gibbs is a fraking idiot, totally out of touch with America.

The House should insist on restoring the public option, and go the reconciliation route.

[jpak]

19. Major tax increase for working Americans? Really - tell us all about it

If a family of 4 makes $48K a year - what would be their "major increase in taxes" under the Senate plan?

:evilgrin:

[IndianaGreen]

27. What planet do you live on?

Haven't you even paid attention to the debate regarding the Senate's great insurance bail out?

[jpak]

37. I have been paying attention and that is why I asked you to back up your (specious) claim

But alas - I get no satisfaction...c'est domage!

:evilgrin:

[robinlynne]

70. Well my health insurance premiums would probably double. barely able to pay them as it is.

but since private corporations would now be required to insure people with pre-existing conditions, and there are no price controls, and we are REQUIRED to buy from private companies, prices will sky=rocket above and beyond what they already are. those of us who have insurance will lose it. It will be good for the lowest of income who will get gov't sponsored health care. But if the profit motive were eliminated, we could all have health care at a lower rate. This is an insurance bill, not a healthcare bill.
oh and limiting the percentage of profits does not lower premiums AT ALL. Ask Halliburton. That is how they raked up billions in Iraq. percenatge of profits. So they spent more to earn more.

[daa]

40. $825 a month Family of 4 eanring 54 grand a year.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, a family of four earning $54,000 in 2016, when the health legislation is fully in effect, would be eligible for a subsidy of $10,100 to help defray the cost of insurance under the health legislation being debated by the Senate. By then, one of the most popular federal plans, a nationwide Blue Cross and Blue Shield policy, is projected to cost more than $20,000.

That could leave the family earning $54,000, slightly more than the current median household income, with monthly premium costs of more than $825.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/health/policy/11insure.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

[jpak]

43. So a $10,000 subsidy to (((cut)))) working family premiums by half is a "tax"???

Is that what you're saying?

(I hope not)

[daa]

46. Yes Are YOU saying that if they have NO insurance

now that they can cough up $825 a month that they are not paying now. That is a hell of a hose payment in my book and when they start paying the 825 YOU tell them what a good dealk they are getting because I am sure they are going to vote against your help.

[jpak]

49. So if they have no insurance and have a major illness or hospitalization they will be better off?

I don't think so.

and taxpayers or hospitals will bail them out for those costs?

Don't think so either

:thumbsdown:

[daa]

54. So you think they are better off

taking 10 grand out of AFTER tax income to buy INSURANCE and then if they get sick they pay copays and prescriptions? Look, One of us is right and one of us is wrong. Overwhelmingly people are opposed to this plan and want a public option. Pass the senate plan and dems will not be in power for a generation. If you are right, everybody will be happy shoveling a boat load of money at insurance companies and then incurring highs costs if they have to USE the insurance. I just don't see it your way and the American people aren't stupid.

[jpak]

55. Yes - just like people are better off with car and homeowner insurance than none

and you need to do some homework...

[bornskeptic]

67. Nobody would force that family to buy $20,000 insurance.

The plan you're alking about is the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Plan with Dental and Vision, the most popular plan among federal employees, including members of Congress. It currently costs about $17,000 annually. Under the Senate bill your family would have to pay $278 a month for insurance which would have an original actuarial value of 70%, which would be raised to over 75% by the income-based reduction in out-of-pocket max. To put in in simpler terms, they would be getting insurance slightly more generous than Medicare (75% actuarial value) for less than $280 per month.If the premium deduction was $10,100, that means the projected cost of that insurance without subsidy is about $14,400. If they wanted to use the subsidy to purchase BC/BS Standard coverage they could do so. They would still be getting a damn' good buy. Where I work, BC/BS Standard without vision and dental costs over $900 per month for a family now.

[cliffordu]

21. Your lack of compassion for the millions of people this will help

is telling.

Your take on what the reconciliation process is and isn't, is pretty funny.

[IndianaGreen]

26. If you really cared at all for people, you would have supported Single Payer

and taken the for-profit health industry out of the equation.

[cliffordu]

35. I do support single payer, completely.

I also support 100% employment.

Neither are possible at this juncture in our history.

To claim otherwise is not living in the real world.

[Fire1]

58. The voice of reason! Thankyou clifford! n/t

[cliffordu]

61. Your welcome....

And, thanks, I don't think I've EVER been associated with the voice of reason before.

:rofl:

[Hansel]

50. Because there would have been no tax increase with single payer.

Not.

Who do you think would pay for single payer?

You seem to be arguing that having to buy health coverage from a private corp amounts to a tax while having to buy it from the government is not. Or maybe you think we won't have to pay for it which we know is not true. It's not an argument that holds water.

I'm all for a public option and it could be put back in reconciliation because it is a budget issue. However, I'm not all that excited about single payer. We already have Democratic reps who are trying to decide which treatments women can and cannot get. Which treatments will be covered will provoke political fire storms every year as the good old boys of congress try to outdo their opponents by yanking out the greatest numbers of treatments for populations that are not them.

Sorry, but I'm not a huge proponent of single payer in this political climate. The abortion issue legislation clinched that for me.

[robinlynne]

71. +1.

[FredStembottom]

5. Deepest sympathy, annabanana!

It changes your perspective to have family members going without health care because they can't get insurance. My family has several such sufferers and it's grim.

At this point, if the millions of families like ours can get coverage - flawed, frustrating, shouldn't-have been-this-way coverage, we will take it.

We have to save some lives first. :hug:

P.S. We're all employed, too! And yet the coverage continues to end for one after another!!

[eleny]

16. Stembottom...

Just saying hi to another Vic & Sade fan. :hi:

[FredStembottom]

62. Don't get me started!

America is unaware of one of it's greatest literary treasures.
Paul Rhymer's Vic & Sade.

That show has enriched my life beyond what a radio show should be able to do!

Anyone reading this: go here: http://vicandsade.net/ and start your love affair with the most realistic and hilariously surrealistic show ever broadcast.

It takes an adjustment period. Vic calls his Son everything from "Nancy" to "Bicycle Pump" to "My old Innersole" to......) just for one example of many things that are confusing at first. But you'll catch on!

In the kitchen, are they, eleny?

:pals:

[eleny]

64. Hey there!

It's amazing how much drama they can fit into 10 minutes or so.

Yep, in the kitchen of the small house halfway up in the next block. How about a game of 500?

[FredStembottom]

66. Sorry, got a flat tire again!

:hi:

[eleny]

72. On the way back from a lodge meeting, no doubt

[dkf]

6. It's funny but I've never supported a bill because it helps me.

So I guess I might support it if I needed it too. I mostly support things that aren't in my best interest because it would raise my taxes and I get no benefit that I notice.

I'm mostly thinking of what works best. And I think this is a bad idea for the country because private medical insurance is supposed to charge more or deny sick people coverage. That is how it functions.

It's simply not meant to be a vehicle to cover everyone. To base everyone's care on a system that makes money when claims are denied is perverse.

[zipplewrath]

36. Are you sure?

There are alot of loop holes in that bill that wouldn't favor you. I'd be curious to know how you are avoiding all of them.

[annabanana]

56. My son has fallen off our family plan...

He graduated from college, was on the Dean's list etc... Hasn't been able to find work with bennies yet, and has asthma..

This bill will give us a couple more years coverage while he finds his feet.

[Hansel]

45. Me too.

My son and his wife have no health care and no prospects to get it. Congress needs to pass this bill and fix it in reconciliation.

[Aramchek]

25. you must not have a pre-existing condition

easy to be a critic when your life doesn't depend on it.

[dkf]

28. It's funny you think only preexisting conditions will screw you with health insurance companies.

Did you see sicko?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Gibbs means taking a vote, not an individual person's vote

Understandable confusion... we need more words.

[DCBob]

9. Correct... a very misleading title.

Nancy is still twisting arms and votes are very fluid now depending on the deals and agreements being made behind the scenes.

[jenmito]

11. The title is a quote from Gibbs. And he was clear that he meant all we need is for the House

to vote on the Senate bill. I don't see what's confusing about it.

[DCBob]

13. Ok, but the title sounds like Gibbs was saying "one vote" like he's counting votes..

Peace. :)

[jenmito]

18. I thought the title (Gibbs' quote) was clear that he meant only one more vote has to take place

before the bill becomes a law.

Peace. :)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. The reason John King assumed he meant the Senate...

We are one vote short of 60 in the Senate. Gibbs said we need "one vote" in the House.

Hence the confusion.

Not knocking Gibbs. Just noting why King was confused, and why the headline might confuse some folks.

[jenmito]

20. I thought that King was thinking that the bill still had to be reconciled and that the Senate

would have to re-vote. But I see what you're saying.

[Hansel]

51. King is confused because he's one big Republican talking point

after another. He has no ability to do broad range analysis and has no business being in the position he is in. He knows only what Republicans tell him to know.

[jenmito]

10. I know that-he said we need to take only one more vote-a vote in the HOUSE-not Senate. n/t

[Phx_Dem]

Important clarification. Thanks!

[Phx_Dem]

41. Important clarification. Thanks!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. Good News

As for people upset/worried about the House passing the Senate bill as is, I should point out that the votes of many House members was supposed to be contingent upon the Senate following up with a "patch" in that body to amend some of the less tolerable aspects of it. If they've (almost) roped in enough House members, they must have a strategy that they're pursuing in the Senate to get that "patch" through as well. Of course, given the "gNOp", the Dems probably have to keep things somewhat quiet over there.

[Faryn Balyncd]

8. The tragedy is that he refers to the Senate bill as "reform" and does not get called on it.......

"If Barack Obama’s bill gets changed to exclude the public entities, it is not health insurance reform…it rises and falls on whether the public is allowed to choose Medicare if they’re under 65 or not. If they are allowed to choose Medicare as an option, this bill will be real health care reform...."

- Howard Dean





:kick:

[Autumn]

12. Sure

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[jenmito]

22. It's a FACT that if the House passes the Senate bill, that's all it would take

to send it to Obama's desk for his signature. Which part are you laughing at?

[Autumn]

24. All of it.

The so called Democrats in the House, the Senate and the whole pathetic package they are touting as reform.

[jenmito]

30. So you don't doubt that it will happen...

you just don't LIKE it. Got it.

[Autumn]

31. Put lipstick on a pig,

it is still a pig. I got it.

[jenmito]

34. You don't care that the so-called pig will insure tens of millions of people.

Got it.

[Sebastian Doyle]

39. It's also a fact that the Senate bill is a steaming pile of shit.

The House bill isn't great either, but at least it's marginally better.

The best thing would be to dump both of them and pass real reform with 51 votes.

[jenmito]

47. You just showed your lack of understanding.

They CAN'T pass real reform with 51 votes. They can only do budgetary things through reconciliation. But if the House passes the Senate bill, it would be with the Senate's promise to change some of the least popular components of the bill. THAT would be MUCH better than nothing.

[GinaMaria]

59. +1

skip the multi-paged clusterfuck written by the insurance companies for the insurance companies. We can do better with a 5 page limit that offers real reform, that we badly need.

[droidamus2]

15. What is this idea

Why is it that they are treating the House like it doesn't really have any function but to rubberstamp whatever the Senate decides to send over. First the Democrats have to give the conservative Republicans everything they want or don't want in the health care legislation with no real compromise. Then the progressive Democrats have to give the conservative Democrats everything they want, again no compromising. Now the House is being told 'there will be no compromise. you either capitulate to the Senates (conservatives) demands or health care is dead'. Is somebody on the progressive side of the Democratic party going to draw a line in the sand or are they all just going to be bought off with promises of money for their home districts. What we have ended up with is legislation that has been written and controlled by only a few conservative senators not real representation.

[tomm2thumbs]

17. I don't think he was supposed to say this - they were hoping the GOP thought it dead

now they will have a bunch of corporate lobbyists re-descend on the House to work 'their magic' all over again. No doubt they wanted to keep this all under wraps, set up their 1st vote/2nd vote plan to fix the bill right away through reconciliation and surprise the GOP with a final bill they thought was dead, but with chatty-cathy Gibbs showing how close it is, thwarts those efforts.

[bvar22]

23. If Gibbs is correct,

then the House is one vote away from committing political suicide.

[jenmito]

32. You're way off.

It'll be committing political suicide if they fail to pass it.

[bvar22]

42. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but...

..I agree with the suprmajority of American voters:

* Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?

Favor 82%

Oppose 14%

Not Sure 4%
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010010320/poll-shouts-message-massachusetts-voters-were-sending

That is only one poll, but in most polls, LESS than 35% of American voters support Mandates without a Public Option.
This bill (the Senate version) will be a very hard sell to America, especially when Premiums on most plans will continue to INCREASE over the next few years.

If the Democratic Party FORCES the Senate Bill through without a Public Option, there WILL be a blood bath in 2010, 2012.

The Democratic Party will pass a Republican Health "Care" Bill* without the Republican Party assuming ANY political risk.
ALL the Republican Party has to do now is sit back and say:
"Yep, We opposed it.
The Democrats have raised your premiums."

QED Massachusetts.

*Mandates + NO Public Option + Massive Welfare for BIG Corporations = Republican Health Care Plan

[Clio the Leo]

29. Yeah but we've lost three yards!!!

He'd been saying we were on the two yard line, now he's saying we're on the five!

PLEASE dont let us come this far only to struggle in the red zone! I dont want to kick a field goal!!!!

[jenmito]

33. Well...

he said we're INSIDE the five yard line. That COULD be still at the second...he's just not sayin'. ;)

[Clio the Leo]

38. Ah, surprise surprise....

... Politico is misquoting him.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/wbarchive/whiteboard01312010.html

[jenmito]

44. Notice how they did not quote the word "on"?

They wrote: Gibbs says health care reform is on “the five-yard line,” and Axelrod says Americans still want it. :eyes:`

[grahamhgreen]

48. Senate bill is HORRIBLE. First, pass the Medicare buy in provision in reconcilliation in both houses

THEN, pass the crapsurance bill, but with the medicare buy-in or a public option already attached!

[Hansel]

52. This sounds like a plan.

Some people in the Congress are stalling because they don't trust the Senate to fix the bill through reconciliation like they promised. But I heard the other day that they could be done 1st before the Congress passes the Senate version, because it doesn't matter which order the bills were passed in, only which order that President Obama signs them in. So they could fix the Senate bill before passing it.

[grahamhgreen]

53. I think it's a great plan. I heard it on Thom Hartmann.

[depakid]

63. That would require courage and political fortitude

and it might make Republicans mad- so that's definitely off the table.

[grahamhgreen]

65. Too true. It would require that the president actually wants something other than a corporate give-

Away to big crapsurance.

[annabanana]

57. I like the sound of that...n/t

[GinaMaria]

60. That would help a lot more people

A medicare buy-in levels the playing field for us. The Insurance Company Bailout bill would give people access to healthcare they can't afford, so will not use. Let them bend the cost curve on someone else's back!

[bornskeptic]

68. Who could afford to buy into Medicare?

Medicare costs the government $10,000 per year per enrollee. That's over $800 a month. Medicare has no out-of-pocket max, unless you pay a couple thousand more for a supplemental, and in some parts of the country it's almost impossible to find a doctor who will accept it.Almost nobody without insurance could afford it, and almost nobody with employer-provided insurance would want to.

[grahamhgreen]

69. Or pass a single-payer rider or a public option FIRST, then pass the crapsurance bill.